All rights reservedLyu, GuoweiBertolini, LucaPfeffer, Karin2023-10-102023-10-102017978-989-99801-3-6 (E-Book)https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/913Book of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Spaces of Dialog for Places of Dignity, Lisbon, 11-14th July, 2017Growing levels of urban mobility provide many noticeable benefits, but they also produce negative effects on the environment and society, such as higher energy consumption, CO2 emissions, air pollution, traffic noise, and reduced traffic safety (Bertolini and Le Clercq, 2003; Banister, 2005; Ferreira et al., 2012). In order to find a better balance between the benefits and costs of urban mobility, a shift from mobility-based to accessibility-based transport and land use planning has been advocated (e.g., Cervero, 1996; Levine and Garb, 2002; Bertolini and Le Clercq, 2003; Bertolini et al., 2005; Curtis and Scheurer, 2010; Bos and Lee, 2012; Levine et al., 2012; Papa et al., 2014; Martens, 2016; Levine et al., 2017). Accessibility-based strategies focus more on people’s direct demand for participation in activities (e.g., housing, working/schooling, shopping, visiting people/places, entertainment etc.), in contrast to the focus on derived travel demand that mobility-based strategies mostly focus on. Among several accessibility-based strategies, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) aims to fulfil people’s need to participate in activities by concentrating relatively high-density, mixed-use, cycling- and pedestrian-friendly development in transit station areas (Bertolini and Spit, 1998; Cervero, 1998, 2004; Curtis et al., 2009). Under favourable conditions, TOD can deliver multiple benefits, such as providing access to diverse activities, creating liveable or attractive places, helping renovate the built environment, and mitigating urban sprawl. In order to measure the actual effects, it is particularly crucial to assess accessibility for TOD. This is because many expected impacts of TOD, for example, reduced passenger transport costs (Litman, 2007), reduced CO2, air pollution emissions, and energy consumption (Kimball et al. 2013; Nahlik and Chester, 2014), and increased land/property values (Cervero and Murakami, 2009; Duncan, 2011) – are closely associated with the enhancement of accessibility, as accessibility significantly shapes these impacts by influencing individual travel behaviour (Kockelman, 1997) and business’ decisions (De Bok and Sanders, 2005; De Bok and Van Oort, 2011). Recently, the assessment of accessibility with respect to TOD strategies has generated considerable interest in academic and professional circles (e.g., Papa et al., 2013; Papa and Bertolini, 2015; Qviström, 2015; Palmateer et al., 2016). Studies have also shown large differences in the application of TOD strategies, resulting in different TOD types, even within the same city (Atkinson-Palombo and Kuby, 2011; Kamruzzaman et al., 2014; Vale, 2015; Lyu et al., 2016). This means that deeper insights into the association between different types of TOD areas and accessibility are necessary. To our knowledge, this association has not been empirically measured yet.EnglishopenAccessconferenceObject2207-2218